Today I don’t feel so creative, not at all. You know days
when everything starts to collapse when something, really small goes wrong.
Well, today is one of those days. Firstly, I missed my class in creative business
today for the first time since I must stay in Helsinki. That’s maybe not so
serious but if you miss a class, you have to do an extra assignment. In my opinion
those extra assignments are as inspiring as yesterday’s cold spaghetti Bolognese.
This time for example I’m must find an article related to the critique of the
creative economy and discuss the key issues. How inspiring is that? I would so
much more have liked to listen to Alf Rehn, especially when that man can talk
(and his Power Point slides suck).
Enough of chitchatting and back to business. So, in the last
posts the concept “creative economy” has been praised and valued almost without
exceptions. Is creative economy as important, fine and nice as we assume? Since
the concept is so half-baked it is hard to get everybody to agree about same
things. One thing can be considered as creative a certain group whereas other does
not see any creative in it. Rehn calls this syndrome for “Emperor´s new clothes”,
you know the fairytale where the king is naked but nobody dares to admit it.
Some goes with creativity and many creative industries. Not so many people dare
to say that Anna Karenina is a piece of shit and that Picasso couldn’t paint
(even if I’m sure that many think so).
 |
| Picture from leninimports.com |
Another issue is who is it really that determines which industry
or art form is more noble and more creative than the others? Previously
artists, the real experts in the field, have been highest up in the hierarchy of
creativity. The design shops ordinary people can visit are on the contrary less
creative, almost mass manufacturing of creativity (Rehn calls this bulk
creativity). The problem is also that if creativity is too hierarchical or
classified, it loses it shine. Increased popularity (read bulk creativity) can
lead to the fact that artist begin to ask if they are creative enough anymore?
But it can’t just be that the only “real” creativity and art would be done
behind curtains, in some sort of pain or solitude.
Who is it that owns ideas? Or creativity? If I come up with
something really creative, I can’t patent my idea as I could patent a new
medicine for example? Creativity is something collective that everybody owns
together. Of course, a physical painting or theatre play can be owned by the
creator but the thought (the real creativity) cannot. But here comes the
paradox, if a creative idea or thought is copied from another artist, it is not
anymore creative. It is only mass production of someone other’s creativity.
 |
| Picture from mindwerx.com |
Since I’m not feeling so creative today, I think this is
enough for this time. Maybe first time I didn’t exceed the word limit, so something
good with my mood as well :)
No comments:
Post a Comment